ASIC launches proceedings against Port Phillip Publishing, proposes business be shut down
ASIC has launched proceedings against online financial publisher Port Phillip Publishing and its CEO, Kristan Sayce, over articles which promoted an investment strategy allowing consumers to ‘piggyback’ the Australian government’s Future Fund.
Sayce, however, says the proposed penalties are “excessive” and “extraordinary” and are proportionately far larger than anything levied at the banks or fund managers after their misconduct.
‘Everyday Australians Now Legally “Piggybacking” the Future Fund…and collecting extra monthly income injections of $540 right up to $6,667’, which was published on Port Philip Publishing’s website and emailed to 120,000 subscribers between September 2017 and January 2018, and a guide entitled ‘Your Quick Start Guide to “Piggybacking” the Future Fund’, which was sent to 833 of the business’ subscribers, are both ‘misleading’ and deceptive’, ASIC has alleged.
Both articles were written by retirement investment expert, Matthew Hibbard. ASIC is also alleging Hibbard did not conduct 900 hours worth of research in relation to the strategy, as he claimed.
Port Phillip Publishing’s article targeted at retirees and included client testimonials, which ASIC also alleges are false. The article and guide were misleading and deceptive as consumers could not mimic the performance of the Future Fund, ASIC said.
ASIC has requested the publication and Sayce pay a penalty for breaching consumer protection provisions of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act (2001) and the Corporations Act (2001), and for breaching its Australian Financial Services Licence obligations. ASIC also proposed Sayce be disqualified from managing corporations, and that Port Philip Publishing and Sayce be restrained from carrying on a financial services business.
In a statement provided to Mumbrella, Sayce said the publisher disagreed with the allegations, adding the proposed penalty was “beyond all reasonableness and excessive”.
“ASIC alleges that Port Phillip Publishing and I (as director and CEO) have misled and deceived investors as a result of a sales promotion that was in effect from around September to November 2017,” Sayce told Mumbrella.
“The premise of the sales promotion was that our income expert would try to mimic or match the performance of the Future Fund. He would attempt to do that by recommending listed investments, which broadly correlated with the Future Fund’s asset allocation.
“We disagree with the allegations, and will defend our position in the Federal Court.
“To be clear, Port Phillip Publishing does not manage money on behalf of investors, and our advisers are not permitted to invest in the stocks they recommend. Port Phillip Publishing only has a licence to provide general advice.
“While I acknowledge that all instances of misleading and deceptive conduct should be investigated, I consider the proposed penalty beyond all reasonableness and excessive.”
Sayce said the proposed penalty – which would see the business closed, would put 70 staff members out of work, and deny 50,000 subscribers advice – was “extraordinary”.
“According to the charge, our alleged misleading and deceptive conduct covers the 833 people who subscribed to the service in the sales promotion, at a cost of $49 each. The total revenue Port Phillip Publishing generated from this campaign was just over $40,000. For this, the proposed penalty is to close our entire business. I am unaware of any instance where regulators have sought to shut down one of the big banks or funds management businesses when they have faced similar accusations,” he said.
Port Phillip Publishing is the publisher of newsletters including The Australian Tribune, Markets & Money and Tech Insider, most of which are paid for by subscribers.
The first hearing is February 22.
ASIC’s latest proceedings come almost three years after Port Phillip Publishing was made to pay $21,600 for a misleading superannuation scare campaign.
Sayce’s full statement:
ASIC alleges that Port Phillip Publishing and I (as director and CEO) have misled and deceived investors as a result of a sales promotion that was in effect from around September to November 2017. The premise of the sales promotion was that our income expert would try to mimic or match the performance of the Future Fund. He would attempt to do that by recommending listed investments, which broadly correlated with the Future Fund’s asset allocation.
We disagree with the allegations, and will defend our position in the Federal Court.
To be clear, Port Phillip Publishing does not manage money on behalf of investors, and our advisers are not permitted to invest in the stocks they recommend. Port Phillip Publishing only has a licence to provide general advice.
While I acknowledge that all instances of misleading and deceptive conduct should be investigated, I consider the proposed penalty beyond all reasonableness and excessive.
In an environment where the major banks and fund managers have been raked over the coals for charging customers a total of millions of dollars for services they didn’t receive, and where the banks have admitted to unconsionable conduct, due in part to their dominant market positions, it’s extraordinary that the proposed penalty is to seek to close our business, put 70 staff members out of work, and deny our 50,000 subscribers the benefit of our advice.
According to the charge, our alleged misleading and deceptive conduct covers the 833 people who subscribed to the service in the sales promotion, at a cost of $49 each. The total revenue Port Phillip Publishing generated from this campaign was just over $40,000. For this, the proposed penalty is to close our entire business. I am unaware of any instance where regulators have sought to shut down one of the big banks or funds management businesses when they have faced similar accusations.
If that happens, such action would only result in consolidating the Australian financial services even more into the hands of the big banks and fund managers. When increased red tape has made it hard for Aussie investors to get any advice at all, I believe it’s more important than ever that Australian retail investors have access to our services.
That’s why we intend to strongly defend our business, our sales promotions, our advice, and most importantly, the interests of our subscribers in the Federal Court.
I have been getting a regular email from Port Phillip. On two occasions I have purchased additional reports from them. In both cases the reports just sold other reports, provided no meaningful content and just started an additional wave of email marketing. It appears to me this organisation sells scam content. It’s sad for people with jobs but I know a dozen reputable organisations that would employ experienced “info product marketers” so they won’t be unemployed for long.
User ID not verified.
ASIC is being a bit harsh don’t you think? What is the big deal on advising imitating the piggyback strategy on the government future fund? Do you not think others employ these methods? Of course they do. big banks and others, they don’t suffer same penalties ASIC are wanting to unleash on Port Philip Publishingm they get away with shit cause they big players
I don’t believe Port Phillip Publishing tries to scam. I don’t believe they deserve the hardline penalties ASIC want to serve them a bit excessive newsletters do try to inform investors on latest news I for one I like to read them.
How about some support for P.P.Publishing.
User ID not verified.
Thanks for your support Christine. We do believe the proposed penalty is excessive, and we will fight this as hard as we can, with all the resources we have. As for Trevor’s comment, I’m sorry to hear you say that. We put a lot of effort into our free and paid content. Our aim is to provide an alternative view and alternative investment ideas. Because of that, we know it doesn’t appeal to some people. As for the marketing side, unfortunately, it’s something we have to do. We’re not a household name. We don’t have the luxury of the big banks and fund managers, where everyone knows them, and where they have millions of dollars flowing in each day. We have to work hard to attract customers. That’s the other reason we’re fighting this. If we are put out of business, it will mean investors have even fewer choices. We won’t just stand by and watch that happen.
Cheers,
Kris Sayce
Publisher & CEO
Port Phillip Publishing
User ID not verified.
The above comment from Christine is clearly targeted PR.
I hope that this matter is investigated properly, and the suggested punishments are executed.
This sounds like a toxic stain on our community, and especially relating to targeting the elderly and pensioners.
Disqualify all licenses.
User ID not verified.
It certainly wasn’t written by anyone at Port Phillip Publishing. Nor did we instruct anyone to write it on our behalf.
I’m certain it will be investigated properly. In fact, we have co-operated with ASIC for the past year, while their investigation has been going on. Now that it is going to the Federal Court, we will have our opportunity to put our case forward.
As I’ve said, I believe the proposed penalty is out of all proportion to the alleged conduct. It’s unthinkable to imagine the regulator seeking to revoke a licence of one of the big banks or fund managers for a comparable allegation.
We intend to fight this action with every resource we have, as we believe the allegations are unfounded.
Cheers,
Kris Sayce
Publisher & CEO
Port Phillip Publishing
User ID not verified.
PPP is part of Agora which is a global, billionaire dollar business. This is not a two-bit, gold tooth operation from Melbourne.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is sadly mistaken.
This is a large-scale sophisticated scam that targets the most vulnerable.
Not only that, but this business has a history of this behaviour not just here, but all over the world.
I will be writing to ASIC to show my support.
R
User ID not verified.
PPP are extremely educative with all their articles. Learnt a bucket load from their site re. investment, politics and economics. Just need to balance their ‘ideas’ off with conducting further research at other avenues of enquiry etc. As for ASIC – just jumping at the chance to get as much media coverage as possible with this one, so it can greatly assist with justifying any budget submissions – that’s how it operates. They’ve been pulling that strategy since inception. Maybe one of those Enforceable Undertakings is the go? Good luck PPP. And for the trolls – this is an independent comment.
User ID not verified.
Thanks Greg. This really comes down to what I consider to be an excessive proposed penalty. I saw in the AFR yesterday, that Telstra was fined $10m last year for misleading 10,000 customers. I sincerely doubt if the ACCC asked for the revocation of Telstra’s communications licence, or to put Telstra out of business. We just want to make sure that the kind of resolutions and penalties faced by the smaller players in business are on the same relevant scale as those faced by bigger businesses. We don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Cheers,
Kris Sayce
Publisher & CEO
Port Phillip Publishing
User ID not verified.
Why are you allowing this propaganda to be published in the comments Mumbrella?
This organisation is a billion dollar predator practising under the guise of a small shop.
Businesses like these that target the vulnerable [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
Good riddance
User ID not verified.
Very pleased to hear that ASIC are turning their attention to PPP. I used to subscribe to some of their publications and all it got me was an inbox overflowing with conflicting advice. I lost money on the advice I chose to follow and now all their emails go to Trash, where they belong. Probably not scammers, but certainly spammers; I hope they are shut down for the benefit of other self-funded retirees.
User ID not verified.
I am an Alliance Member of PPP. I don’t read all of the publications as they don’t fit my mould but the newsletters that I do read I get a lot of info out of them. There is a lot of indepth research gone into making up these newsletters & the Buy & Sell opportunities are all there for you to look at. If trading on the Stock Market was as simple as a lot of people want it to be, then we would all be millionaires. There is risk in anything that you do with investing or trading so don’t start blaming the guys who gave you the tips & it didn’t work out. Do your own research with the recommendations – look at the charts & decide if you are going to make the right move. Even a Clairvoyant can’t get it right 100% of the time so us mere mortals have no chance. Understand Risk Management before you invest in the Stock Market & only invest in a stock if you are prepared to lose that investment should it go pear shaped.
User ID not verified.
I’ve been a long time subscriber to PPP. I cant say I’ve been that successful in building my wealth via their recommendations but its beyond ludicrous to suggest they should be shutdown for the alleged breaches. And the banks, in which I have most of my money, do nothing to build my wealth and they have committed breaches that would see a small business CEO thrown in jail. Also how about all the subscribers that will loose their subscriptions if ASIC were successful.
User ID not verified.
I am a subscriber to Port Philip Publishing and have found the broad range of information that I receive to be both interesting and some of the share advice valuable.
However they do send me multiple emails on the same topic which makes it a chore to wade through.
On the subject of misleading and deceptive conduct, its a bit of a stretch and if you gave everyone their money back, they would constitute a satisfactory resolution from my understanding of the law.
For ASIC to be seeking what would be onerous penalties, suggests they have an axe to grind with the publisher. Otherwise why would you use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut?
User ID not verified.
I find this extraordinary – an overreach of ASIC powers, in my opinion.
As a subscriber to Port Philip, I receive a number of publications from them.
I CHOOSE to then do what I like with the information I get, from the various publications, in terms of my own wealth creation. If a newsletter in their portfolio is not delivering what I need, then I stop that subscription. It’s a quality business. No one forces me to taken any decisions – I am responsible. In reading some of the comments form others, I am bemused by their experience. Perhaps you need a Financial Advisor then, to hold your hand at every turn.
User ID not verified.
I think you may be right, I’m sick of this dodgy company sending questionable and misleading advice to vulnerable people.
It’s about time ASIC took action.
User ID not verified.
A likely story, very believable.
User ID not verified.
As far as I am aware and as a former PPP subscriber, this is anything but an honest company. Yes they sent you multiple emails of the same thing only disguised under a different name. I subscribed to the gold stock picking package and the guy swore black and blue that gold would reach $10,000 an ounce. Most if not all the gold stock picks were failures. Then there was the IPO subscription that once again I paid big dollars for only to be sold complete failures and saw 95% of my money eroded. Finally, when they show you their portfolio of failures, sorry stocks held, most are in negative territory and their maths on winners can only be described as pie in the sky stuff put together by a 10 year old.
User ID not verified.
I have been a subscriber for a while and find that PPP are an educational and informative Company with high standards. Their views about world issues are an eye opener to the novelist and an indicator as to what may be profitable in the future. I don’t understand ASIC’s issues when we see the Banks and Superannuation company’s totally go beyond the Regulations and morales of the community only to be given a slap on the wrist.
User ID not verified.
I read elsewhere that there was to be a hearing again in May. What was the outcome of that.
I agree this is excessive penalty for what is ultimately money and choices in the hands of the subscriber.
User ID not verified.
I actually think ASIC wasn’t harsh enough and should have suspended their AFSL immediately (one wonders how they managed to even get one in the first place).
The problem here is misleading advertising and not whether the advertised strategy was profitable or not (although it was unimaginative and lazy given the Future Fund’s portfolio being public knowledge).
Also, aside from legality, targeting vulnerable groups like pensioners is just despicable.
User ID not verified.
How about the subscribers?
Given the junk advice, I’d say ASIC has done them a favour!
User ID not verified.
i subscribe to ppp .. they are very educational to subscribers
not all their recommendations are profitable but many are..
i have made more money than i paid on the subscriptions
Kris could you guys look at
ASI there are a few to many recommendations extremely down and been there long time..
User ID not verified.
To those who aren’t aware, the dispute is over the absurd claim that you could earn “monthly income of $540 to $6,667” simply by “piggy backing” the government’s future fund.
Where this figure comes from is anyone’s guess.
Also, the portfolio of the future fund is publicly available here: https://www.futurefund.gov.au/
User ID not verified.
I have found that overall i have learnt alot PP publishing and their sometimes controversial articles. I don’t agree with all of their stuff but i’d rather read thought provoking stuff like theirs than the mindless drivel of the mainstream with their politically correct sanitized crap.
The game is rigged and ASIC is part of the scourge on us all.
Good luck Kris !!!!
User ID not verified.
ASIC should have gone for the major Banking institutions, including the Energy and Telecommunication providers with this uncommon determination, and who, in fact, peddle their misleading and deceptive conduct on a daily occurance.
And, in natural fact have certainly ripped off many consumers as well as myself, on numerous occasions, without any remorse and or proper adherence by the regulators.
What’s good for the goose ought to be the same for the gander. Telstra fined a mere $10,000 is a joke, and that is why they will continue to breach the law using the offshore counterparts without any care.
Google is coping a 250 million dollar fine for deceiving young children with their data collecting interests, yet the big corporations that are well established here in Australia (re Telstra and alike) are protected.
User ID not verified.